Originalveröffentlichung in: Wolf, Werner (Hrsg.): Metareference across media : theory and case studies (Studies in intermediality ; 4), Amsterdam u.a. 2009, S. 319-353 "L'architecture n'est pas un art rigoureux" Jean Nouvel, Postmodernism and Meta-Architecture Henry Keazor When thinking about 'meta-architecture', the first thing that springs to mind is postmodernist architecture: its collecting and combining diverse historical styles from different epochs in a very conscious way are a clear sign of a highly self- referential attitude. Considered in the context of the present volume's terminolo­ gy, postmodernist architecture appears, moreover, as seemingly critical but actu­ ally quite 'harmless' metareference. However, the underlying assumption, namely that architecture is a medium in which metareference can occur, may appear de­ batable. This assumption is discussed here with the help of a historical as well as a methodological survey of the efforts to view and analyze architecture as a means of communication. Finally, the dilemma of postmodernist metareferential archi­ tecture is focussed by comparing it to another form of more critical meta­archi­ tecture which has been developed by the French architect Jean Nouvel: coming to terms with the reasons and motives that generated postmodernist architecture, but without adopting its solutions, Nouvel conceived an 'architecture critique' which uses postmodernist strategies in order to voice critique and protest. "Une architecture parlante, et qui fera parler." (Chaslin 2008: 25, on Jean Nouvel's "College Anne Frank") 1. The dilemma of postmodernist architecture According to the architect and historian Charles Jencks modern(ist) architecture' died on the 15th of July 1972 at 3.32 p.m., when the sub­ Jencks' nomenclature is far from being consistent or well sorted: thus, he talks about "modern" architecture where he obviously means 'modernist', deliberately con­ fusing the term 'modern', which usually refers to contemporary architecture, with 'modernist', the notion used for a specific architectural movement of the first half of the 20lh century. This gives him the possibility of opposing 'modern' to 'postmodern' and thus of making the latter look like the rightful successor of all 'modern' architec­ ture. Cf. in this context also the critique by Lampugnani 1986: 195. Fischer therefore corrects Jencks by stating that he actually describes the death of functionalist!) and that he wrongly equates the destruction of Pruitt­Igoe with the death of modern(ist) 320 Henry Keazor urban housing complex Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis, Missouri was blown up (cf. 1977: 9). Conceived and built according to the advanced ideals and principles of the architect Le Corbusier and the CIAM, the Con- gres Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne (a series of international conferences of modern architects between 1928 and 1959), the design of Pruitt-Igoe had been awarded a prize by the American Institute of Architects in 1951 and had been realized in the following years, be­ tween 1952 and 1955 (cf. also Newman 1996: 10). However, a mere twenty years later it turned out that the rationalistic and puristic style thought to equally promote rationalistic and morally pure behaviour among its inhabitants2 had actually been perceived by them as cold, sterile and anonymous, and instead of provoking virtuous behaviour, it had made them turn their frustration and aggression against each other as well as against the surrounding architecture itself: the Pruitt­Igoe complex had the highest crime rates in St. Louis, and at the time the buildings were blown up, they had been badly damaged, besmirched and disfigured over the years by their inhabitants (cf. ibid.: 9­11). Although Jencks' claim that with the demolition of Pruitt­Igoe the "Death of Modern Architecture" (1977: 9) had taken place seems rath­ er exaggerated (since, e. g., even after the destruction of these build­ ings, equally rationalistic examples of the modernist style continued to be built)3, it is clear why he interpreted the end of this architectural complex in such a dramatic way: with it, the failure of some of the most central ideals of the modern(ist) movement in architecture be­ came seemingly evident. Rational and simple forms, following func­ tion rather than the dictate of sumptuous decor, and ornament­less purity ­ all believed to turn the inhabitants' minds toward an equally architecture (cf. 1991: 9). For the fundamental distinctions between 'modern' and 'modernist' see also Heynen 1992. 2 For the idea of a positive influence of 'good' architecture on its inhabitants cf. Taut 1929: 7; the central idea behind this concept has been aptly put into words by Theodor W. Adorno, who in his 1965 lecture "Funktionalismus heute" states that an architecture worthy of human beings thinks of them than better they actually are (cf. 1967: 120). 3 Opposing Jencks' position, Vittorio Magnago Lampugnani, c. g., refutes the latter's rendering of the case by stating ­ among other things that the failure of Pruitt­Igoe did not only have architectural but also political, social and administrative reasons, that the ominous date of 1972, which Jencks named as the dying­hour of modernist architecture, is more or less arbitrary and that Jencks' use of the term 'mod­ ern' is rather vague and confusing (cf. 1986: 194 197 and see fn. 1 above). Jean Nouvel, Postmodernism and Meta-Architecture 321 pure honesty and rationality - had apparently been perceived as bor­ ing, dull and even oppressive. No wonder Jencks proclaims the evident crisis and the death of modernist architecture in the early 1970s, a period that saw the birth and rise of postmodernist architecture, whose full bloom, according to Jencks himself, coincided with the fall of modernist architecture (cf. 1977: 81­132). Postmodernist architecture had thus not merely been prepared for during the late 1960s but can, from Jencks' perspective, also be described as the response and exact counter­movement to modernist architecture. Hence, modernist architecture mainly promoted credos such as Louis Sullivan's "Form follows function"4 and Mies van der Rohe's "Less is more" (an absence of ornament was felt to come as a relief after the often exaggerated decor of the 19th century), which postmod­ ernist architects ­ in the wake of earlier critics such as Saul Steinberg, Ernst Bloch and Theodor W. Adorno ­ turned into critical responses such as "Less is a bore" (Venturi 1966: 25). They considered merely rational and aesthetically severe design as leading to desolate and meaningless results. While modernist architects had expected the viewer and visitor of a building to be influenced and impregnated by its rationality, the postmodernists pointed out that viewers and visitors did not feel anything in front of such buildings. It was thus claimed that architecture, instead of waiting for the viewer to approach it and be influenced by it, had to try to actively communicate with the recipi­ ents again, to actually make a communicational 'move' towards them by approaching them through signs and elements they known and arc familiar with6. This also explains the heavy recourse of postmodernist 4 A minimal use of material was promoted in opposing the 19"­century practice of paying exaggerated attention to aesthetic ideals that led to the material actually used often being hidden or camouflaged. 5 See Steinberg's 1954 caricature "Graph Paper Architecture" of a skyscraper con­ sisting of nothing but a blank piece of graph paper; cf. Bloch 1977: 20­29; 1959: 858 863 and Adorno 1967: 110f, 114, 123. The concept behind this idea had already been voiced before by Jacques­Francois Blondcl in his Cours d'architecture civile, published in Paris in six volumes between 1771 and 1777, in which he stresses the fact that beauty docs not lie in the object itself (as someone holding an idealistic point of view would argue, a position which was then taken up by the modernist architects), but in the experiences of the beholder; in the wake of Boffrand (cf. 2002: 8) objects thus have to show a certain 'affirmative' 322 Henry Keazor architecture to the rich and multifaceted tradition of architectural styles and symbols that were considered to appear as familiar and easily recognizable for the viewer. Yet, if taken seriously and followed rigidly, this recycling of tradi­ tion would only have resulted in a revival of 19th­century architectural historicism which had chosen certain, seemingly appropriate tradition­ al styles for given building projects (e. g., the style of Gothic cathe­ drals for railway stations or of Greek and Roman temples for banks or museums). Given, however, that already in the 19th century uncertain­ ty had arisen concerning questions of how to adequately answer the demands of new building forms7, and since postmodernist architecture wanted to escape rules and regulations in favour of a playful, surpris­ ing and humorous appearance of its buildings, eclecticism as well as free, provoking variations were the key notions. It thus becomes un­ derstandable why architecture itself and its history were often made the topics of postmodernist buildings: not only was the old topos that the facade of a building corresponds to a human face (with the eyes being the windows of the soul and the mouth the passage way for communication)8 frequently taken up, but one also often encountered the iconic forms of a house inside a house9. Moreover, it also becomes clear why a prominent forerunner of the movement such as Robert Venturi found a prime inspiration for post­ modernist architecture in the aesthetics of the Las Vegas Strip with its loud, big and heavily symbolic, ornamental and decorative advertising and 'appealing' character (cf. Blondel 1771 1777: vol. 2, 229f.). Cf. also Kruft 1985: 162, 167. 7 See the programmatic title of Heinrich Hiibsch's 1828 publication In welchem Style sollen wir bauen and also Walthcr 2003: for the general context cf.